Why I'm beefing with the Colts passing offense

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The gameplan should say that when you need yards on 1st and 10, you take them. Yes, Luck has to identify that opportunity and make the adjustment, but Chud has been working with Luck for a long time now. Week 16 and we don't make that adjustment? Yes, it's on Luck, but where has the coaching been?

 

As for the Vikings play, let me say that this is not the only time the Colts run stuff like this on 3rd and long. It's a common thread for this offense, going back to Arians. You have defenders playing off, and again, the gameplan should emphasize adjustments against that look. The play call should stress the middle of the field, especially against a blitz look. They give you an umbrella coverage, and you run all three receivers to the top of the umbrella without so much as a hot option. What if your protection breaks down entirely? What option would the QB have? It's just a flawed concept on 3rd and 10, no matter how they line up, but especially when they play off on the outside. Give your playmakers a chance. 

 

A read option with a keeper to the weak side would have been a better play call. 

Maybe the conclusion is that Chud and Luck both have a Coryell philosophy to offense. Again, the OC can only call the play before the defense lines up.  Getting the proper play called once the defense is lined up at the LOS is on the QB.  And Luck isn't Manning, so he's more apt to pick and choose his spots to audible and not have free reign on every play.

 

It comes down to whether or not on any given play do the routes compliment each other and give the receivers a chance to get open.  I think the concepts need modernization.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, superrep1967 said:

You got way to much time on your hands like the Styx song.Do you have a job or you just obsessed with this? Because you can't change what happened and you can't do anything about it in the future either so let it go no offense.

 

LOL

 

I wish I could give more astute analysis like yours, stuff like 'Luck is probably sorry he re-signed with this failure.' 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think the concepts need modernization.

 

Absolutely. 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, krunk said:

Dorsett should have gotten the football almost certainly.   However TY was open as well, he just happened to fall down. If he doesn't fall then that's likely a completion.  Doesn't look to me that anyone is on either one of them.   Maybe Luck isn't trusting Dorsett to pick that one up possibly.  

 

Then Luck should make that known, and Dorsett should be nailed to the bench. No point in him being on the field if Luck can't trust him when he's wide open on 3rd and 2. 

 

I don't think that's the issue, I think Hilton was schemed open, but the Raiders bailed out instead of sending a man with Dorsett, so he was open first. Luck never looked at him. I don't have as much of a problem with Luck taking shots at Hilton as some do, but here, when a man is wide open directly in front of you, you throw him the ball. As a QB, you MUST make that play, IMO. Hilton falling down shouldn't have mattered because Dorsett should have been running after the catch already.

[backshoulderfade]

28 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Luck is perfect for the Coryell passing attack, to be honest. But the OL isn't a good fit, and the adjustments I would like to see would take pressure off of the OL and eventually make the vertical stuff even more deadly. If you add these slants and screens and work better route combinations, the offense would be more efficient, and a byproduct to efficiency is explosiveness, especially when you already have a QB/WR combo like Luck to Hilton. 

Absolutely. Really, I was replying to other posters who I feel were overly harsh on Luck. One thing the top QB's have in common this season was the % of their throws within 5 yards. I can't recall where I saw it, but I believe the likes of Brady, Rodgers and Ryan sat at about 25%. It is essential to the modern offense. I feel like our offense exists to much in that intermediate range.

[bababooey]

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I can't imagine that they don't. I just think, philosophically, this offense wants to stress the defense vertically, which they're good at -- the bail out on 3rd and 2 is a perfect example. But they don't take proper advantage underneath, and when they do, it's mostly to TEs. So your WRs get stuck with a lot of high difficulty stuff down the field, and not enough opportunities to catch and run. Rogers and Dorsett have ability with the ball in their hands to make people miss and outrun defenders, and they both got robbed of the opportunity to do so.

If they do, it's yet to be seen. But seriously, Bon Jovi got his start sweeping floors of the music studio and you are here providing analysis like this right under the Colts noses. Don't see how this organization wouldn't find you extremely useful considering all the constructive input you provide FOR FREE over the years.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, egg said:

 

I was so hopeful when Pep left, but the gross inefficiency on offense remains. The common denominator is the QB.... Andrew Luck must improve managing the offense at the line of scrimmage.

 

Peyton Manning's mantra was "I take what the defense gives me." Luck is deficient in this.

 

Luck isn't the only common denominator. A greedy offensive approach was brought in with Arians, and remains to this day. 

 

If they called games for Luck like they did for Hasselbeck (and even for Freeman and Lindley), I think the offense would be more efficient.

 

Not absolving Luck of all guilt, but the approach favors downfield attacks over efficiency, by design.

[krunk]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Then Luck should make that known, and Dorsett should be nailed to the bench. No point in him being on the field if Luck can't trust him when he's wide open on 3rd and 2. 

 

I don't think that's the issue, I think Hilton was schemed open, but the Raiders bailed out instead of sending a man with Dorsett, so he was open first. Luck never looked at him. I don't have as much of a problem with Luck taking shots at Hilton as some do, but here, when a man is wide open directly in front of you, you throw him the ball. As a QB, you MUST make that play, IMO. Hilton falling down shouldn't have mattered because Dorsett should have been running after the catch already.

It was good scheming, but bad execution.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, bababooey said:

If they do, it's yet to be seen. But seriously, Bon Jovi got his start sweeping floors of the music studio and you are here providing analysis like this right under the Colts noses. Don't see how this organization wouldn't find you extremely useful considering all the constructive input you provide FOR FREE over the years.

 

Ha, I appreciate the kind words, but this is seriously rudimentary stuff, and it's about as extensive as I can be. This might be long division, but real gameplanning is calculus level stuff. 

 

The last two years, ESPN has done a simulcast of the national championship game with five college head coaches breaking down the game in real time. I found it fascinating, because those guys see stuff that I would never catch, and they understand it right away. Their immediate grasp of techniques and just their terminology is very advanced. 

 

I'm a poser, but it's fun. 

[braveheartcolt]

Great stuff as usual Superman, but I reckon you could do a similar snapshot of where we did a great job, and smashed it up field.....

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, backshoulderfade said:

Absolutely. Really, I was replying to other posters who I feel were overly harsh on Luck. One thing the top QB's have in common this season was the % of their throws within 5 yards. I can't recall where I saw it, but I believe the likes of Brady, Rodgers and Ryan sat at about 25%. It is essential to the modern offense. I feel like our offense exists to much in that intermediate range.

 

Yeah, Luck is at or near the bottom of the league in percentage of passes within five yards of the line of scrimmage. Meanwhile, Antonio Brown catches a little hitch early Sunday and goes to the house, and Ben's numbers look great. 

 

We were all ecstatic in 2012 with Luck's ability to make plays down field. He was one of the best on third and long, one of the best on throws 10+ yards and 20+ yards down the field, etc. Meanwhile, RG3 wins ROTY, primarily because he only threw 5 picks and had a 65% completion rate, compared to Luck's 18 picks and 54% completion rate (he also ran for 800 yards and 7 TDs).

 

I don't think it would be smart to take a QB with Luck's ability and put him in a simplified, one read, dink and dunk kind of offense. But there's a world of difference between that and the downfield stuff that has been stressed since he's been here. Finding a happy medium isn't that hard, I don't think. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Great stuff as usual Superman, but I reckon you could do a similar snapshot of where we did a great job, and smashed it up field.....

 

Absolutely, lots of them, as a matter of fact. Luck didn't throw 31 TDs and 4200 yards without successful pass plays, of course. But this is the stuff that, IMO, keeps our offense from being GREAT. And it's frustrating on a fundamental level because the QB got hit 130 times this season. 

[DougDew]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Luck isn't the only common denominator. A greedy offensive approach was brought in with Arians, and remains to this day. 

 

If they called games for Luck like they did for Hasselbeck (and even for Freeman and Lindley), I think the offense would be more efficient.

 

Not absolving Luck of all guilt, but the approach favors downfield attacks over efficiency, by design.

And this is the problem, and what I don't totally get.  It seems the offensive braintrust is more than capable of calling a modern offense, at least more short quick stuff.  So why is it when Luck is the QB does it revert back to the longer stuff so much.  Its one thing to say that Chud can't call a modern/short game plan, but that's not true since we've scene evidence that he can.

 

So what's the problem with the Chud/Luck combo?.  The only thing I can think of is that the other QBs could not throw an accurate long ball, so Chud was forced to eliminate a lot of those plays.  But as long as there's a QB capable of throwing long, then that's going to be the emphasis. 

[bababooey]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Ha, I appreciate the kind words, but this is seriously rudimentary stuff, and it's about as extensive as I can be. This might be long division, but real gameplanning is calculus level stuff. 

 

The last two years, ESPN has done a simulcast of the national championship game with five college head coaches breaking down the game in real time. I found it fascinating, because those guys see stuff that I would never catch, and they understand it right away. Their immediate grasp of techniques and just their terminology is very advanced. 

 

I'm a poser, but it's fun. 

It's your hobby though, it's still extremely useful. I'm sure it was all those coaches hobbies at one point as well. Do you coach youth or high school?

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, bababooey said:

It's your hobby though, it's still extremely useful. I'm sure it was all those coaches hobbies at one point as well. Do you coach youth or high school?

 

Nope, too busy to do it as anything other than a hobby. I took about an hour to do this last night while I was sort of watching the Giants/Packers replay... 

[backshoulderfade]

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, Luck is at or near the bottom of the league in percentage of passes within five yards of the line of scrimmage. Meanwhile, Antonio Brown catches a little hitch early Sunday and goes to the house, and Ben's numbers look great. 

 

We were all ecstatic in 2012 with Luck's ability to make plays down field. He was one of the best on third and long, one of the best on throws 10+ yards and 20+ yards down the field, etc. Meanwhile, RG3 wins ROTY, primarily because he only threw 5 picks and had a 65% completion rate, compared to Luck's 18 picks and 54% completion rate (he also ran for 800 yards and 7 TDs).

 

I don't think it would be smart to take a QB with Luck's ability and put him in a simplified, one read, dink and dunk kind of offense. But there's a world of difference between that and the downfield stuff that has been stressed since he's been here. Finding a happy medium isn't that hard, I don't think. 

With regards to slants, one thing that concerns me is personnel. Do we have a physical wideout who can consistently get that inside release ane box out defenders. Don't get me wrong, i love TY and he is elite when it comes to fades, deep crossers, posts, corners etc. Could be Moncrief, maybe he is underutilized on our offense.

 

Although we have more pressing needs, I wouldn't be mad if Dalvin Cook ended up on the roster. We had great success when Bradshaw was here, with his ability to block out the backfield. I have visions of Cook taking it to the house after a quick check and release against a 6 man blitz. I feel with his ability as a runner, blocker and reciever he could be the perfect back for a Coryell offense, in the same mould as Marshall Faulk. Could make our O way more efficient.

[Creekside]

57 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Luck isn't the only common denominator. A greedy offensive approach was brought in with Arians, and remains to this day. 

 

If they called games for Luck like they did for Hasselbeck (and even for Freeman and Lindley), I think the offense would be more efficient.

 

Not absolving Luck of all guilt, but the approach favors downfield attacks over efficiency, by design.

 

Your original points are well taken. I don't disagree at all that the scheme is a big problem. It's just hard for me to believe that Luck doesn't have the authority to call for a better play at the line when he sees the defense. 

[Coltsagent]

Superman....besides the plays you showed what percentage of plays would you estimate are bad design? How many are just the offense guessing wrong? You cant have the perfect play called every time and Luck seems to have the most trouble when they show one look at snap then D shifts into after the snap.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

3 hours ago, superrep1967 said:

You got way to much time on your hands like the Styx song.Do you have a job or you just obsessed with this? Because you can't change what happened and you can't do anything about it in the future either so let it go no offense.

What a horrible thing to say.  This is a Colts fan Forum and maybe Supe's hobby is different than yours and thus dictates how he spends his time differently 

[Superman]

19 minutes ago, Coltsagent said:

Superman....besides the plays you showed what percentage of plays would you estimate are bad design? How many are just the offense guessing wrong? You cant have the perfect play called every time and Luck seems to have the most trouble when they show one look at snap then D shifts into after the snap.

 

I wouldn't even want to guess. There are a lot of plays that don't utilize the middle of the field like I want, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad plays. But I see plays like the Vikings 3rd and 10 a couple times a game, I think. 

 

And to be fair, every offense has bad plays at times. Like you said, you can't have the perfect play called every time. 

 

On the other hand, Luck takes longer than almost every other QB from snap to throw, on average. That's partly a function of the offense, and it applies across the board. This is with a below average OL. That's my major problem -- you have a bad/young OL, but you run a vertical offense, and you don't sufficiently work in short concepts to take pressure off of the OL and make life easier on your QB. We can go play by play and say what does and doesn't work, but on a fundamental level, the approach is flawed, IMO.

[throwing BBZ]

15 hours ago, Superman said:

#2: Same drive, 3rd and 2. Another 3WR set, now the Raiders are in dime. You'll see Hilton come across the formation in motion to join a bunch formation on the left side. 

 

 

The Raiders went dime presumably to cover wide, but now they have 7 defenders in the box and 2 more inside the numbers, less than 10 yards off the line. They are now susceptible on the outside, and they basically scatter when the ball is snapped. This is a great way to stress a defense, especially horizontally in short yardage, because the last thing they want is to get beat deep. The DBs at the bottom of the screen are backed off to give their defense depth, but they are essentially going to surrender the middle of the field. The weakside LB is going to cover the back in the flat, but everyone else in the middle drops into a zone.

 

 

This is the Promised Land. The middle of the field is W I D E open. Dorsett is running a quick hitter underneath, and Luck has a throwing lane right up the alley to put the ball on Dorsett, with room to run and only the safety to stop him. This play is probably a 10 yard gain before Dorsett is even touched.

 

Luck never looked at him, and my heart broke. I was at this game, sitting behind this end zone, watching Dorsett come open across the middle. This is the concept I've been asking for all year (more like since 2012). And we blew it. 

 

 

Luck gets stuck on Hilton, who also comes open. Luck fires, but Hilton stumbles coming out of his break, and the pass is incomplete. This is not a bad decision by Luck, but it's clearly the WRONG decision, and it wiped out a great opportunity to get another score. This, again, is before Carr went down. This game could have been within two scores before the Raiders even got the ball back, but we couldn't even get this drive started due to two missed opportunities.

 

I give Chud credit for this play call. It's perfect on 3rd and 2, and the Raiders wanted no part of trying to cover the middle on this play. Luck missed it, and this falls directly on him. 

 

 Lucky has had open receivers come across his face since day 1 and has Chosen to look for his favorite receiver instead.  Gross over targeting of Reggie and TY.
 He is not the guy we were sold. But he is Our Guy!  lol

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Lucky has had open receivers come across his face since day 1 and has Chosen to look for his favorite receiver instead.  Gross over targeting of Reggie and TY.
 He is not the guy we were sold. But he is Our Guy!  lol

 

He's actually exactly who we were sold -- John Elway. Everyone has spent the last five years comparing him to Peyton Manning, which is silly.

[tikyle]

8 hours ago, backshoulderfade said:

Man, Peyton Manning and that levels concept did damage.

 

1. Manning never had a bad O-line in Indy until after he had a Superbowl ring.

2. Manning had way superior route running WRs than Luck.

3. Manning always had a running game in Indy until after he had a Superbowl ring.

4. Luck is no Manning.

[Dingus McGirt]

4 hours ago, superrep1967 said:

You got way to much time on your hands like the Styx song.Do you have a job or you just obsessed with this? Because you can't change what happened and you can't do anything about it in the future either so let it go no offense.

Dude.

[backshoulderfade]

2 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

1. Manning never had a bad O-line in Indy until after he had a Superbowl ring.

2. Manning had way superior route running WRs than Luck.

3. Manning always had a running game in Indy until after he had a Superbowl ring.

4. Luck is no Manning.

I don't know what point you think you are trying to prove here, but it's not working.

[tikyle]

29 minutes ago, backshoulderfade said:

I don't know what point you think you are trying to prove here, but it's not working.

 

Comparing Manning's situation, success, etc. to anything Luck is doing is makes zero sense.  The only thing their situations have in common is their owner and the uniform they wore to begin their NFL careers.

[Jason_]

3 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

Comparing Manning's situation, success, etc. to anything Luck is doing is makes zero sense.  The only thing their situations have in common is their owner and the uniform they wore to begin their NFL careers.

 

Yeah, um, I don't think he was comparing the 2.  If anything, i think he was saying that Manning was one of the first to use that levels concept (which I doubt is true) that spread around to the rest of the league.

[thecorn4]

Some good insight from the forum today.  The biggest thing to me, and Superman commented on this, is the below average O-line play, and we run a vertical passing attack.  True, Luck at times holds the ball to long, other times the routes the receivers are running require him to hold the ball longer.  To help the O-line out utilize the short passing game, and use it to set up the deep pass.  At times it seems we have that backwards.

 

I would find it interesting on how and or when we used those formations/plays at other times during those games.  Plays are ran to setup other plays, you look at defensive tendencies and how they react to certain plays/formations, and even personnel groupings.  Maybe the coaches saw something earlier in the game that led them to call these formations/plays at this point in the game.  

 

Either way thanks Super, and all the quality posters for the time you have spent on stuff like this, it adds just another element to watching games, and being a fan.  GO COLTS!!!

[backshoulderfade]

36 minutes ago, tikyle said:

 

Comparing Manning's situation, success, etc. to anything Luck is doing is makes zero sense.  The only thing their situations have in common is their owner and the uniform they wore to begin their NFL careers.

I didn't compare anything. I said Manning did damage with the levels concept.

[21isSuperman]

@Superman, my question is this.  You said yourself this is some basic, rudimentary stuff.  If the fans can see problems like this from their homes, and the problems are basic issues with scheming, why can't the coaches, who spend hours watching game film and on the practice field, see these same flaws and make the adjustments? 

[Superman]

36 minutes ago, thecorn4 said:

I would find it interesting on how and or when we used those formations/plays at other times during those games.  Plays are ran to setup other plays, you look at defensive tendencies and how they react to certain plays/formations, and even personnel groupings.  Maybe the coaches saw something earlier in the game that led them to call these formations/plays at this point in the game.  

 

To be fair, the play in that Vikings game is on the first drive. I meant to say that they might have been in 'feeling out' mode, like how boxers don't throw their best stuff in the first round. But I still just don't like the call, especially against off coverage. Take the short completion on the outside or run someone across the middle, see if you can get the extra yards for the first down, and then you set up your outside stuff, your double moves, etc., for later in the game. 

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

@Superman, my question is this.  You said yourself this is some basic, rudimentary stuff.  If the fans can see problems like this from their homes, and the problems are basic issues with scheming, why can't the coaches, who spend hours watching game film and on the practice field, see these same flaws and make the adjustments? 

 

I think it's because the scheme is designed to stretch the defense vertically at every opportunity. It always features multiple vertical routes and is supposed to work the seams up the field. 

 

It's like complaining about Rex Ryan's defense getting beat when he blitzes. His defense is going to blitz. He believes that he can beat you more than you can beat him, so he'll take some losses along the way and play the long game. And he usually has the talent to do that. The only times he toned it down was when he was playing Manning, Brady or another dangerous and heady QB. But for the most part, a tiger doesn't change his stripes. That's his philosophy, and you have to take the good with the bad.

 

This offense can be explosive, and we've seen plenty of that. The idea is similar -- "we'll beat you more than you beat us." But when it stalls, it's UGLY, and it leaves the QB vulnerable. The Colts don't have the talent to run this offense right now. They have the QB -- the biggest part -- and they have the receivers, but they do not have and never have had the OL. Thus, Luck gets pressured, hit and sacked way too much. Even if we had a great line, Luck would still take more pressure than Manning did for most of his career.

 

I'd rather see the offense pick at the defense's weaknesses, then take shots as opportunities show themselves. Instead, they force it. Norv Turner has more balance in his Coryell approach than almost everyone else. Chud isn't as good of an OC / playcaller as Turner, so the issues are more glaring. But as a similarity, look at how much Rivers gets hit. By the end of Turner's time there, he was getting sacked 40+ times. 

[21isSuperman]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I think it's because the scheme is designed to stretch the defense vertically at every opportunity. It always features multiple vertical routes and is supposed to work the seams up the field. 

 

It's like complaining about Rex Ryan's defense getting beat when he blitzes. His defense is going to blitz. He believes that he can beat you more than you can beat him, so he'll take some losses along the way and play the long game. And he usually has the talent to do that. The only times he toned it down was when he was playing Manning, Brady or another dangerous and heady QB. But for the most part, a tiger doesn't change his stripes. That's his philosophy, and you have to take the good with the bad.

 

This offense can be explosive, and we've seen plenty of that. The idea is similar -- "we'll beat you more than you beat us." But when it stalls, it's UGLY, and it leaves the QB vulnerable. The Colts don't have the talent to run this offense right now. They have the QB -- the biggest part -- and they have the receivers, but they do not have and never have had the OL. Thus, Luck gets pressured, hit and sacked way too much. Even if we had a great line, Luck would still take more pressure than Manning did for most of his career.

 

I'd rather see the offense pick at the defense's weaknesses, then take shots as opportunities show themselves. Instead, they force it. Norv Turner has more balance in his Coryell approach than almost everyone else. Chud isn't as good of an OC / playcaller as Turner, so the issues are more glaring. But as a similarity, look at how much Rivers gets hit. By the end of Turner's time there, he was getting sacked 40+ times. 

Even if that's the philosophy behind the offense, you'd think they'd be more willing to take what the defense gives them.  The screenshots you posted show an almost adamant refusal to throw/run underneath and short routes.  The big play can be your bread and butter, but when the corner is giving an 8 yard cushion, you take the short play.  The frustrating part, as you've said several times, is that they have shown some great gameplans where they take what the defense gives them, the ball comes out of Luck's hands quickly, and the offense moves the chains.  Just out of curiosity, if you were to pick one coach to lead the offense, whether it be an offensive coordinator or a head coach, who would you take out of the current available candidates?

[Coltfreak]

10 hours ago, krunk said:

There's also room for him to run as a last option, although it's way more intelligent on this play to just toss it to Dorsett or Hilton.   Seems on many occasions the Raiders did not cover Luck.  For a lot of this season to me he seemed hesitant to tuck it and run for the first down.  Plenty of first downs he could have picked up in the Texans game if he had just tucked it and ran instead of tossing the pick into coverage.  I'd like to see that element of his game come back.  Just needs to avoid the huge collisions by sliding and what not.

I assume he's been told not to run anymore 

[backshoulderfade]

4 minutes ago, Coltfreak said:

I assume he's been told not to run anymore 

He had the second most rushing yards and tied most rush attempts this season, actually.

 

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

Just out of curiosity, if you were to pick one coach to lead the offense, whether it be an offensive coordinator or a head coach, who would you take out of the current available candidates?

 

It's probably between McDaniels and Darell Bevell. Both have run multiple systems with lots of wrinkles for several QBs of varying ability, but their offense always has an identity despite it's variety.

 

Bevell worked with a gunslinger that Luck is often compared with -- Brett Favre -- and in his last healthy season Favre threw for 4200 yards, 34 TDs and only 7 picks, and they had a great rushing attack at the same time. Bevell goes to Seattle and they run a simplistic, rush first attack with a dual threat QB, and that QB has been among the league's most efficient QBs for five years, behind a spotty pass pro OL. He's a WCO guy, but he obviously attacks every level of the defense with the pass, and has no problem running the ball down the throat of the defense. 

 

There are others that are intriguing. Bill Musgrave was just fired by the Raiders, and I'm not sure why. Here's some of what he said about offensive philosophy a few years back: http://www.startribune.com/musgrave-discusses-offensive-philosophy-qbs/114293529/ 

[RockThatBlue]

13 hours ago, GoColtsWin said:

Thank you Supe for the amazing posts! You have educated me on some things, and it's gonna be hard to ignore these facts. Wow. How can minute details be pointed out on a forum like this, but go unnoticed/unheaded by our coaching staff?

They probably do notice them, but it is odd how it never seems to be worked on or improved. 

[RockThatBlue]

9 hours ago, bababooey said:

If they do, it's yet to be seen. But seriously, Bon Jovi got his start sweeping floors of the music studio and you are here providing analysis like this right under the Colts noses. Don't see how this organization wouldn't find you extremely useful considering all the constructive input you provide FOR FREE over the years.

Superman > Stephen Holder

[RockThatBlue]

Wish the Colts gave Luck more designed run plays. We did a read option play and Luck kept it and ran almost 30 yards. And that play was never to be seen again.

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

Wish the Colts gave Luck more designed run plays. We did a read option play and Luck kept it and ran almost 30 yards. And that play was never to be seen again.

 

Just watched that play, it was against the Texans in the second game.